"It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?"

St. John Chrysostom

 Sensible, decent Jimmy Carter got it right again. “This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue, or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a higher authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights across the world for centuries. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with and reinforce traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant, and damaging examples of human-rights abuses.”'

Francine Prose has once again turned her attention to the status of women (did I just see you yawn? Go ahead. Click away if you wish.)  in various cultures world-wide. 

While it has become fashionable to bash Muslims as being the most severe in their treatment of women; after all, the most strict enforcement of sharia sees women being whipped for showing an ankle or their face, or being stoned to death for adultery, we continue to overlook the "death by a thousand papercuts" that both Christian and Jewish women are subjected to, even in this country, where, to hear some tell it, women have got no cause to be bitching about inequality. 

But, you know, when Jimmy Carter makes the painful decision to quit the church to which he has belonged his entire life because of its insistence on the inferiority of women, we need to be paying attention. 

The right wing in this country comprises not only teabaggers who think all taxes are the devil's handiwork and that Obama is a socialist, it is also full of folks who believe that women need to be at home, making babies, and keeping their mouths shut. 

And yes, I know. I've written about this before. I've written both as an angry woman reclaiming my body and as a scholar attempting to understand why we do not take the suffering of the body seriously. 

Terri Schiavo's death has affected me, not because I knew the woman, but because I know about the thing that drove her to her collapse in the first place. Eating disorders. Hatred of the body. The desire to hurt the thing that will not be controlled-the body, the female body.

So much of what I write about comes back to the body. It is the topic I cannot stay away from. It is the source of my politics. It is the source of my art. It cannot be separated from my brain. I am not a Cartesian. It's not just that I think; it's that I feel, and I touch, taste, smell. It's that I have orgasms, that I know the touch of flesh on flesh. It is that I have felt a baby pass through my birth canal, have felt the stirring of life within me. It is that I have been penetrated by another human being. It is that I have experienced pain. It is that I have looked at my body and seen a reflection of imperfection that I wanted to fix, and in seeing that, I have starved it, purged it, wished it different. And so, having been so much an inhabitant of my body, that I declare that bodies are the site of resistance. It is that I think the government has no right to tell me which of my senses I should privilege, and which of my senses I should discipline.

But because I am also a thinker, I think often of the sources of body hatred in this culture. They are myriad. We all know them. Today, I focus on one. This is inspired by a number of things, too many to go into here. But I picked up the Bible again recently, and concomitantly, I re-read Elaine Scarry's The Body in Pain. It has made me want to write the following.

Let's start with Genesis. With the creation of man and woman. Did you know there are two creation tales? The one that we usually remember is the one that says that woman was made from the rib of Adam, that he came first. But that's not the first one.

Chapter 1, Verse 27. ”So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

In this version of the story, God is both male and female. Both male and female are expressions of God's essence. And yet, that's not the story we are told in Sunday school. Frequently, if we are told of Eve at all, we are told of her being the source of original sin. And what was original sin, exactly?

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Eve didn't give humanity sin. She gave humanity knowledge And God's punishment for that had been like something handed out by an angry father. “How dare you speak back to me. How dare you question my authority. I will make you sorry that you were ever born.”

Not only that, Eve becomes aware that she has a body, and in that awareness, a whole other world of sensory experience is opened up to her. Think about it: What does the term “to know someone biblically” mean?

As Scarry writes:

Part of the knowledge that comes with eating of the tree of good and evil is that they stand, without protest, as creatures with bodies in the presence of one who has no body. It is crucial that these two be said together: the problematic knowledge is not that man has a body; the problematic knowledge is not that God has no body; the problematic knowledge is that man has a body and God has no body-that is, that the unfathomable difference in power between them in part depends on this difference in embodiness … their awareness of the body will soon be correspondingly be heightened: the body is made a permanently preoccupying category in the pain of childbirth, the pain of work required to bring forth food…

And so, God places a curse on Eve and Adam's bodies. He makes it that they will die. He curses women to bring forth children in pain. He makes their bodies the source of suffering. He makes the fact that God has an urepresentable body and humans have a body the source of suffering, of separation, of pain.

And I think that we've been laboring under that ever since. Do I believe the Genesis story? No. Not personally. But it doesn't matter. Because so many people do, and for them, the body is the thing that got us into trouble with God. And other people's bodies are still getting us into trouble with God. Unruly women, gays and lesbians, teenagers having sex, people insisting that they have the right to determine how and when they die. It's all, according to some, designed to piss God off. And we know what happens when God gets pissed off. Look through the Old Testament. There's plenty there. You want something that will really set you back on your heels? Look at the Book of Lamentations.

Elaine Scarry has an entire section of her book devoted to God's lack of body. Yes, of course, in the New Testament, God does have a body in the form of Jesus Christ. And there's a hell of a lot of suffering that gets inflicted on that body. But in the Old Testament, God does not have a body. And what's more, the Fourth Commandment specifically commands that humans not dare to imagine what that body might look like-at least not by making graven images of it.

What does it mean that God does not have a body? To quote Scarry:

But to have no body is to have no limits on one's extension out into the world; conversely, to have a body, a body made emphatic by being continually altered through various forms of creation, instruction (e.g., bodily cleansing), and wounding, is to have one's sphere of extension contracted down to the small circle of one's immediate physical presence. Consequently, to be intensely embodied is the equivalent of being unrepresented and (here as in many secular contexts) is almost always the condition of those without power.

In other words, to be represented by a body is to be finite, to be less powerful, to be controllable. It is not the suffering of Christ that is offered by the right wing as the source of their politics. If it were, their politics would be more compassionate, would recognize the body as the source of pleasure but also of pain. Instead, they make references to the Old Testament, to Sodom and Gomorrah, to Leviticus, to all the parts of the Bible where God seems to punish humans for simply being human.

So, I've been thinking about all of this as the drama of Terri Schiavo has played out. I've been thinking of a young woman who believed her body was the enemy. Who set out to control it in the only way she knew how. By purging it, and in purging it, destroyed it.

***************

Francine Prose returns to many of these same themes. She, too, sees women's bodies as the sticking point for male-centered religion. Let's face it, women's bodies are so damn messy. 

Ranke-Heinemann tracks much of this back to the body-hating, pleasure-despising strain introduced into the early church by the Essenes and Gnostics. Later, the early and medieval saints and theologians would show little interest in concealing their horror of sex and the body. According to one thought often attributed to Thomas Aquinas, any variation on the so-called missionary position was as sinful as having intercourse with one’s own mother.

The debate over sex with the beautiful versus sex with the ugly had its twisted roots in the belief that there was an almost mathematical ratio between pleasure and sin. The greater the pleasure, the worse the evil. Apparently, too, there also was considerable worry about ejaculation as something that drains and weakens the male, a dangerous process in general and particularly in the presence of the predatory woman who, unlike her mate, doesn’t lose in sex a life-sustaining fluid. The rabbinic admonition to think of a woman as “a pitcher of filth with its mouth full of blood” was echoed in the work of the twelfth-century theologian Petrus Cantor. “Consider that the most lovely woman has come into being from a foul-smelling drop of semen; then consider her midpoint, how she is a container of filth; and after that consider her end, when she will be food for worms.”

Julia Kristeva, the French feminist, has argued that the "abject," literally, that which we throw away from us, includes all of our bodily fluids. And women simply have more fluids than men. No wonder, then, that religion, which strives to have a spiritual relationship with God, is disgusted by those things that keep it earthbound. 

Women cannot help but be aware of her relationship to the earth. She bleeds each month, most often in tune with the moon. When she gives birth, it is in a rush of fluid, and blood, and shit, that firmly anchors the process of becoming human to the things about our bodies that we claim disgust us. 

Theologians debated for years whether Jesus shat or pissed. They could not accept that a perfect being would produce waste products. What to do then, with a creature, that produces waste products constantly--and does not die as a result? 

Increasingly, I find the body phobia of each of the three monotheistic religions to be pathological, and that pathology turned into holiness. 

I think I'd rather stay a woman. Grounded. Of the earth. Messy. Real.